What aspects of 10th do you like/dislike

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Unit1126PLL**

ERJAK wrote:

Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.

Two 40k players in the local group gave up on picking up heresy because they were confused and scarred by the faction diversity, since the armies actually play differently.

Even different Militia armies play differently.

**Wyzilla**

My main problem with 30k is both being really disinterested with 40k fluff permanently now, but that aesthetically they're largely the same armies up against each other (which tbh is a problem with 40k as well half the time). Picking up the marines vs marines game with small subfactions on the side when you're already used to seeing marine releases up to your eyeballs is a rough sell and feels kinda dull.

**Unit1126PLL**

Wyzilla wrote:
My main problem with 30k is both being really disinterested with 40k fluff permanently now, but that aesthetically they're largely the same armies up against each other (which tbh is a problem with 40k as well half the time). Picking up the marines vs marines game with small subfactions on the side when you're already used to seeing marine releases up to your eyeballs is a rough sell and feels kinda dull.

I don't disagree with this too much - convergent design is likely a consequence of battlefield requirements being similar too. So I suppose it gets a pass from me - a T-34 and a Panzer IV are about as different as a Predator and a Leman Russ.

**The Red Hobbit**

Wyzilla wrote:
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

Likewise, positioning and movement have not changed at all from 8e or 9e notably, maintaining their archaic status from over thirty years ago. Battleshock is a positive move forward but hardly goes far enough, and without suppressive rules hardly makes sense, units being unable to score is the bare minimum of 'suppressed' or 'shaken' effects expected in a wargame. The fact templates aren't coming back either is disappointing, as is vehicles being magical black boxes with no weaknesses on angles (monsters too for that matter) feeling like a dim choice that prevents older depth from returning. Overall it just looks like a really dumb beer and pretzels version of 8e, only with more imbalances, lethality, and extremely poor editorial work. Woo?

Also regarding GW's desire to streamline the game, I find this old blog post hilarious because, operating on 7th edition rules mind, this change of system would eliminate over half of all dice rolled, greatly speeding up the game, while causing zero statistical shift in unit performance. As I've come to realize though a good system like this likely will never come to pass simply because GW are not a games company, but a model company. Innovation after all, is heresy.

https://theback40k.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-do-we-roll-so-many-dice-in-40k.html

Very interesting blog post, thank you for sharing.

**Arachnofiend**

Wyzilla wrote:
My main problem with 30k is both being really disinterested with 40k fluff permanently now, but that aesthetically they're largely the same armies up against each other (which tbh is a problem with 40k as well half the time). Picking up the marines vs marines game with small subfactions on the side when you're already used to seeing marine releases up to your eyeballs is a rough sell and feels kinda dull.

Mr. Night Lords might like his chaos armies with all the chaos picked clean from them but I just cannot abide by Thousand Sons without Rubrics or Iron Warriors without Obliterators. 30k is just not a setting I would ever be interested in and frankly I doubt many people would be interested in it if it wasn't for 40k.

**tneva82**

Wyzilla wrote:
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

Quite a few weapons got shots halved.

Fight twice/shoot twice been going down.

I'm rerolling less dice.

**Slipspace**

I like the return of USRs and the general reduction in stratagems. I like the new Faction/Detachment system as a way of managing future bloat (assuming GW stick to their word on how they'll do it).

My dislikes are almost all around the points and list building. The PL 2.0 points system is unbelievably stupid for reasons that have been very extensively explored, not helped by the patronising corporate-speak WarCom post about it. Other than the points, I'm also finding it incredibly annoying to build lists, for two reasons.

1. The fixed points makes it frustratingly easy to end up with an annoying number of points left and no way to fill them. That means either playing a lot of points down or doing a massive list reorganisation to fit something different in. Previously it was usually a matter of adjusting unit sizes or upgrades across a few units.

2. This may just be down to the PDFs of the datacards, but going through the various units and checking which characters can join which units, what their abilities are, and how they interact with the abilities of units they can join is a real chore. It may get easier as I build more lists and understand which characters go best with each unit but right now it's a really laborious process.

Other than points and list issues, the balance looks to be all over the place. This is the problem with GW trashing their system every so often - they start from scratch again, apparently after having been mindwiped to forget any and all lessons of previous editions (why do so many indirect fire weapons ignore the penalties, for example?)

**ccs**

Slipspace wrote:

2. This may just be down to the PDFs of the datacards, but going through the various units and checking which characters can join which units, what their abilities are, and how they interact with the abilities of units they can join is a real chore. It may get easier as I build more lists and understand which characters go best with each unit but right now it's a really laborious process.

Just type up your own reference list.

**Not Online!!!**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.

Two 40k players in the local group gave up on picking up heresy because they were confused and scarred by the faction diversity, since the armies actually play differently.

Even different Militia armies play differently.

What? How? did they let their hobby knife lie openly?

**Slipspace**

ccs wrote:
Slipspace wrote:

2. This may just be down to the PDFs of the datacards, but going through the various units and checking which characters can join which units, what their abilities are, and how they interact with the abilities of units they can join is a real chore. It may get easier as I build more lists and understand which characters go best with each unit but right now it's a really laborious process.

Just type up your own reference list.

I can do that, but it seems unnecessarily laborious. I think the biggest problem is things like Chaplains. Previously they all had the same rules, with slightly different stats. The same applied to Captains, Apothecaries, etc. Now I need to know the individual rules for each different type of character. Then I also need to know which units they can join, and what special rule they have (because they all have one!). It's just more to learn overall and seems needlessly frustrating.

**chaos0xomega**

Wyzilla wrote:
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.

**Lord Clinto**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.

Besides the user-unfriendly points, "Twin-linked" is one of my biggest gripes. Halving the amount of shots to give a reroll to wound...I don't think I've come across a situation in game where I'd rather have a reroll to wound vs. the chance to hit twice.

**Not Online!!!**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.

Again, that is a perception thing, just as the reroll cut is a perception thing. Sure GW has massively reduced Rerolls in 40k, but when you know how the older edtions played it still is far too many.

**Racerguy180**

ERJAK wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.

You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.

Hey man, it's okay. This is a safe place.You don't have to pretend like Horus Heresy isn't just another GW game but with boring models and the same boring faction repeated 20 times. We're all friends here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.

You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.

Yeah, they don't get it.

30k has my armies actually feeling like they should rather than the gak show that was 9th and now even worse dumpster fire that's upon us.

Only problem in 30k is no xenos(can be rectified).

Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.

I'll admit my Salamanders and Emperors Children are Marines so you've got me there. But Militia are Marines? Ad/Mechanicum/us are Marines? Daemons are Marines? Man I really must be playing the game wrong or completely don't understand the stupidity of your statement(thankfully).

So only 2 of my 5 armies I play(no ork rules yet so that would be 6) are Marines, but funnily enuff they ACTUALLY play COMPLETELY different.

**Karol**

Not Online!!! 810347 11553829 wrote:

Again, that is a perception thing, just as the reroll cut is a perception thing. Sure GW has massively reduced Rerolls in 40k, but when you know how the older edtions played it still is far too many.

Lets just say that GW was very unequal when cutting out re-rolls. In GK everyone lost them, not even Draigo gives re-rolls. On the other hand there are armies that re-rolls everything or almost everything, or just the important stuff. I think people would mind it less to lose their own re-rolls, if other armies didn't kept theirs or had them enhanced.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 810347 11553720 wrote:

Quite a few weapons got shots halved.

Fight twice/shoot twice been going down.

I'm rerolling less dice.

Yes, but that was done to armies that ended up bad. The good armies are still throwing buckets of dice out of LoS, with bonuses, or do devastating wounds, kill stuff in overwatch etc. Although one does have to say that resiliance for some stuff was buffed up too. Vehicles are tough. Wraights for eldar are extremly hard to kill you have to do in more then 2 per turn, or they regenerate by the time it is next turn. It all is just creates an odd sitaution when the haves are blowing whole armies up, and there have to be terrain rules changed, while other armies are fishing for 6s .

**vict0988**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.

In 9th edition a Predator with 4 lascannons needed to roll 4 dice to hit and 4 dice to wound. A quad las Predator in 10th needs to roll 1 dice to hit, 1 dice to wound, re-roll the wound roll, roll 2 more dice to hit and roll to wound with those two dice, terrible game design. Where might re-rolling speed up the game? In cases where the alternative is rolling huge numbers of dice, but do Ork Boys have twin-linked as opposed to 40+ attacks? That's not mentioning that twin-linked does not have the same outcome as twice the shots, twin-linked is now an anti-vehicle keyword.

**PenitentJake**

vict0988 wrote:

In 9th edition a Predator with 4 lascannons needed to roll 4 dice to hit and 4 dice to wound. A quad las Predator in 10th needs to roll 1 dice to hit, 1 dice to wound, re-roll the wound roll, roll 2 more dice to hit and roll to wound with those two dice, terrible game design. Where might re-rolling speed up the game? In cases where the alternative is rolling huge numbers of dice, but do Ork Boys have twin-linked as opposed to 40+ attacks? That's not mentioning that twin-linked does not have the same outcome as twice the shots, twin-linked is now an anti-vehicle keyword.

Nope. Only 1/3 las canons is twin linked. So you can speed roll hit and damage for the sponson canons just like 9th.

For the turret, you only get one shot, but if your first attempt to wound fails, you get a second attempt. Assuming that SOME of your turret shots wound on the first attempt, you're actually rolling fewer dice in 10th (though you're also only getting 3 shots instead of 4).

I personally like this in a higher toughness meta better than 4 shots, especially when I split fire. I could throw the sponson shot at <=T12 where I need 4's to wound and throw the sponson at >T12 where I need 5's. In 9th, any of my 4 shots was as good as any of the others, so there's no capacity to match the right weapon to the job, you're just picking targets.

I should note: as per the predator annihilator datacard, any wounding hit DOES reroll 1's on damage, so you do potentially get more dice there.

**ERJAK**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.

Two 40k players in the local group gave up on picking up heresy because they were confused and scarred by the faction diversity, since the armies actually play differently.

Even different Militia armies play differently.

Yeah, some marines punch marines, some marines shoot marines. Very diverse. Sure are.

**Voss**

Lord Clinto wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.

Besides the user-unfriendly points, "Twin-linked" is one of my biggest gripes. Halving the amount of shots to give a reroll to wound...I don't think I've come across a situation in game where I'd rather have a reroll to wound vs. the chance to hit twice.

Gods, I would. Re-rolling to hit and then failing to wound anyway is a pinnacle 'feels bad' moment, especially on bigger guns.
The further steps away from attack resolution, the less valuable the dice, because there's another failure point coming up. With attack rolls, I'd much rather just have more attacks than re-rolls.

**ERJAK**

Racerguy180 wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.

You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.

Hey man, it's okay. This is a safe place.You don't have to pretend like Horus Heresy isn't just another GW game but with boring models and the same boring faction repeated 20 times. We're all friends here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
Horus Heresy also isn't good. It's just propped up by only having one faction and about 15 players.

You really should talk to a professional about these delusions, ERJAK.

Yeah, they don't get it.

30k has my armies actually feeling like they should rather than the gak show that was 9th and now even worse dumpster fire that's upon us.

Only problem in 30k is no xenos(can be rectified).

Yeah, they all feel like marines. Because they're all marines. Shocking.

I'll admit my Salamanders and Emperors Children are Marines so you've got me there. But Militia are Marines? Ad/Mechanicum/us are Marines? Daemons are Marines? Man I really must be playing the game wrong or completely don't understand the stupidity of your statement(thankfully).

So only 2 of my 5 armies I play(no ork rules yet so that would be 6) are Marines, but funnily enuff they ACTUALLY play COMPLETELY different.

It's cool that they let you play the NPC factions, even though they don't matter. Hey when your punch marines punch your other punch marines, do you still just fill in an excel spreadsheet because initiative as a rule removes player agency and renders you a spectator to your own game?

**H.B.M.C.**

I have three Horus Heresy armies.

Only one of them is Marines.

**vict0988**

PenitentJake wrote:
vict0988 wrote:

In 9th edition a Predator with 4 lascannons needed to roll 4 dice to hit and 4 dice to wound. A quad las Predator in 10th needs to roll 1 dice to hit, 1 dice to wound, re-roll the wound roll, roll 2 more dice to hit and roll to wound with those two dice, terrible game design. Where might re-rolling speed up the game? In cases where the alternative is rolling huge numbers of dice, but do Ork Boys have twin-linked as opposed to 40+ attacks? That's not mentioning that twin-linked does not have the same outcome as twice the shots, twin-linked is now an anti-vehicle keyword.

Nope. Only 1/3 las canons is twin linked. So you can speed roll hit and damage for the sponson canons just like 9th.

For the turret, you only get one shot, but if your first attempt to wound fails, you get a second attempt. Assuming that SOME of your turret shots wound on the first attempt, you're actually rolling fewer dice in 10th (though you're also only getting 3 shots instead of 4).

I personally like this in a higher toughness meta better than 4 shots, especially when I split fire. I could throw the sponson shot at <=T12 where I need 4's to wound and throw the sponson at >T12 where I need 5's. In 9th, any of my 4 shots was as good as any of the others, so there's no capacity to match the right weapon to the job, you're just picking targets.

I should note: as per the predator annihilator datacard, any wounding hit DOES reroll 1's on damage, so you do potentially get more dice there.

You are rolling dice up to 6 times now because the twin-linked weapon cannot be rolled together with the sponsons, before you rolled dice 2 times, you might be rolling fewer dice at a time, but it is still takes far longer overall. If you could just roll 10 dice once to see how much damage a Predator did then that would be the fastest way of the three methods.

**kodos**

ERJAK wrote:
Yeah, some marines punch marines, some marines shoot marines. Very diverse. Sure are.

point is, HH armies actually play differently than 40k armies although you have more NPC factions in 40k that should be different

but this is a problem of 40k since at least 3 editions, that there are a lot of factions but gameplay is the same with everyone

**tneva82**

Lord Clinto wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.

Besides the user-unfriendly points, "Twin-linked" is one of my biggest gripes. Halving the amount of shots to give a reroll to wound...I don't think I've come across a situation in game where I'd rather have a reroll to wound vs. the chance to hit twice.

The whole point is to reduce lethality...

Guess you could just halve the shots and not give anything back

But you can't reduce lethality without making weapons actually worse at killing stuff. So removing shots is right step. It also fastens up game as a bonus.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

vict0988 wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
Wyzilla wrote:
The main thing that stuck out to me as nothing improving with 10e when looking at the various rule drops earlier was the dice volume has not changed. They have superficially claimed and attempted to adjust lethality somewhat, yet they did nothing to reduce the volume of dice being thrown around which is where the bulk of 40k's ridiculous lethality and protracted game time comes from. What might have tempted me to get back into 40k is if they rolled back the absurd bloat of attacks and marines went back to just 1 attack default, multishot weapons rolled back to an average of only 1-2 attacks, etc.

This is kind of a bad take as GW cut in half the number of dice that something like half the weapons in the game can roll by bringing back the concept of "twin-linked" (and applying it to the wound roll rather than the to-hit roll as was the case in older editions), instead of the 8th and 9th edition paradigm of treating those weapons as a multiple of the base weapon.

In 9th edition a Predator with 4 lascannons needed to roll 4 dice to hit and 4 dice to wound. A quad las Predator in 10th needs to roll 1 dice to hit, 1 dice to wound, re-roll the wound roll, roll 2 more dice to hit and roll to wound with those two dice, terrible game design. Where might re-rolling speed up the game? In cases where the alternative is rolling huge numbers of dice, but do Ork Boys have twin-linked as opposed to 40+ attacks? That's not mentioning that twin-linked does not have the same outcome as twice the shots, twin-linked is now an anti-vehicle keyword.

Aah yes. You are always going to roll for wound. Always going to reroll.

And wtf? You add up dices for OTHER WEAPONS to other weapons?

Okay so 9e you had total of 8 dice total.

Here you then 3 dice to hit, 3 dice to wound, 1 dice to reroll so 7 dice total.

Of course somehow you always fail to wound on first roll...

Lol.

Your method is flat out wrong. You got halved shots on 1 gun. The other guns are same so no change there. So right there you get halved hit dice amount which means you will roll less wound rolls also and of course the reroll doesn't even come to play.

Funny how you factor in sponson weapons only for 10e dice rolling but conveniently ignored them for 9e. Bad faith argument and twisting of numbers to max

Any reasonable person doesn't even factor sponsons when talking does change to the main gun add or reduce dice rolling.

**vict0988**

tneva82 wrote:
Here you then 3 dice to hit, 3 dice to wound, 1 dice to reroll so 7 dice total.

You can't mix the twin-linked (TL) with the non-TL weapons because you don't get to re-roll all wound rolls on the sponsons, only the 1s. But I guess cheaters like you don't care about rules. The fact is you can't mix the sponsons with the non-sponsons and you get re-rolls where you did not have re-rolls before, so rolling attacks for a quad las Predator is going to take longer. I even forgot the re-roll 1s for the sponsons so I was clearly not doing anything to the MAX.

Previously you had to roll to hit 100% of the time roll to wound 99% of the time. Either way it's done really fast.

Now you have a 100% chance of rolling to hit for the TL lascannon with a 44% chance of rolling to wound once, 22% chance of rolling to wound twice. 100% chance of rolling to hit for the lascannon sponsons, 68% chance of rolling to wound once for the lascannon sponsons 21% chance of rolling to wound twice for the lascannon sponsons.

On average you needed to pick up your dice 1,99 times (1-2 times in total) in 9th edition, 3,98 times (2-6 times) in 10th. What a devil I am with my math, clearly this is great game design /sarcasm.

**Slipspace**

vict0988 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Here you then 3 dice to hit, 3 dice to wound, 1 dice to reroll so 7 dice total.

You can't mix the twin-linked (TL) with the non-TL weapons because you don't get to re-roll all wound rolls on the sponsons, only the 1s. But I guess cheaters like you don't care about rules. The fact is you can't mix the sponsons with the non-sponsons and you get re-rolls where you did not have re-rolls before, so rolling attacks for a quad las Predator is going to take longer. I even forgot the re-roll 1s for the sponsons so I was clearly not doing anything to the MAX.

Previously you had to roll to hit 100% of the time roll to wound 99% of the time. Either way it's done really fast.

Now you have a 100% chance of rolling to hit for the TL lascannon with a 44% chance of rolling to wound once, 22% chance of rolling to wound twice. 100% chance of rolling to hit for the lascannon sponsons, 68% chance of rolling to wound once for the lascannon sponsons 21% chance of rolling to wound twice for the lascannon sponsons.

On average you needed to pick up your dice 1,99 times (1-2 times in total) in 9th edition, 3,98 times (2-6 times) in 10th. What a devil I am with my math, clearly this is great game design /sarcasm.

Your mind is going to be blown when you discover the concept of differently coloured dice.

**vict0988**

Slipspace wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Here you then 3 dice to hit, 3 dice to wound, 1 dice to reroll so 7 dice total.

You can't mix the twin-linked (TL) with the non-TL weapons because you don't get to re-roll all wound rolls on the sponsons, only the 1s. But I guess cheaters like you don't care about rules. The fact is you can't mix the sponsons with the non-sponsons and you get re-rolls where you did not have re-rolls before, so rolling attacks for a quad las Predator is going to take longer. I even forgot the re-roll 1s for the sponsons so I was clearly not doing anything to the MAX.

Previously you had to roll to hit 100% of the time roll to wound 99% of the time. Either way it's done really fast.

Now you have a 100% chance of rolling to hit for the TL lascannon with a 44% chance of rolling to wound once, 22% chance of rolling to wound twice. 100% chance of rolling to hit for the lascannon sponsons, 68% chance of rolling to wound once for the lascannon sponsons 21% chance of rolling to wound twice for the lascannon sponsons.

On average you needed to pick up your dice 1,99 times (1-2 times in total) in 9th edition, 3,98 times (2-6 times) in 10th. What a devil I am with my math, clearly this is great game design /sarcasm.

Your mind is going to be blown when you discover the concept of differently coloured dice.

Yeah, I totally missed that in the core rules, was it page 37 or 42? /sarcasm Bad rules are bad whether you can hack the game to work around them or not. Like FNP against multi-Damage weapons is atrocious even if you can just re-roll successful FNP rolls for D2 weapons if your unit is made up of 1W models. Here's an idea, quad las Predators were not a problem, the fact that they got 2 extra Toughness makes up for the fact that lascannons got an extra point of damage, so they still wouldn't become glass cannons or something like that. Here's an idea, 4 lascannons, no re-rolls and an ability that adds 2 to the Strength of ranged weapons. Simplified, not simping.

**Gene St. Ealer**

ERJAK wrote:

It's cool that they let you play the NPC factions, even though they don't matter. Hey when your punch marines punch your other punch marines, do you still just fill in an excel spreadsheet because initiative as a rule removes player agency and renders you a spectator to your own game?

Stahp ERJAK, you just keep digging the hole deeper. You're usually right when discussing things you are knowledgeable about; you are obviously not knowledgeable about 30k.

**Uptonius**

ccs wrote:
Uptonius wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Simplycasualgaming wrote:
...but I understand, reading comprehension is probably hard for you.
Bad start, Mr. 23 posts.

Simplycasualgaming wrote:
There is nothing wrong with the new point system...
As long as you ignore every single criticism that everyone has brought up since it was announced, sure.

To be fair, the number of posts is irrelevant. This is probably my 5th or 6th account here and I e been a member longer than all of you.

Prove it.

I actually took some time and forgot to take a screenshot while caught up in a journey down memory lane.
Uh ... You can use the Wayback Machine to look at Dakka pre-2006 and see pics of me at some of the mega-battles. Mostly Armageddon 3 and the Tyranid Invasion.

**PaddyMick**

You may get better answers to this question when everyone's had a chance to play a few games.